top of page

The consent of the family not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock

Educated younger boys and girls are choosing their life partners which, in turn is a departure from the earlier norms of society where caste and community play a major role. Possibly, this is the way forward where caste and community tensions will reduce by such inter marriage but in the meantime these youngsters face threats from the elders and the Courts have been coming to the aid of these youngsters. (Para 9)

Laxmibai Chandaragi B & Anr. V/s The State of Karnataka & Ors.

Writ Petition [Criminal] No.359/2020

Decided on 08th February, 2021

A Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy presided over the present petition arising out of an inter-caste marriage.

The factual matrix of the case begins with the F.I.R lodged by mother of Petitioner No.1 as she thought her daughter was missing. The police tracked down her call details and found her to be in contact with Petitioner No.2. Later, it was found out that Petitioner No.1 without informing her parents flew to Delhi to get married to Petitioner No.2 . The petitioner No.1 sent her marriage certificate to her parents through Whatsapp on 15.10.2020 in which proved her marriage to petitioner No.2. It is the case of the State that the IO proceeded to Ghaziabad to know the whereabouts of petitioner No.1 and on visiting the residence of petitioner No.2, was informed by his parents that they do not know the whereabouts of the petitioners. However, the petitioner No.1 spoke to the investigating officer and informed that she had already married petitioner No.2 and was residing with him. But the IO instead insisted that the petitioner No.1 should appear before the Murgod police station to record a statement so that the case can be closed. The petitioner No.1 sent a letter to the IO stating that she was married to petitioner No.2 and there was threat from her parents and thus, was unable to visit the police station. The case was still not closed of missing person by the IO.

Being threatened by the Uncle of Petitioner No.1, the Petitioners moved to the Allahabad High Court seeking protection for themselves and the family members. The present petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution as there is an issue of duality of jurisdiction arising from her residing with Petitioner No.2 in Uttar Pradesh while her originally being from Karnataka.

The petitioners have annexed a transcript of the conversation between petitioner No.1 and the police whereby the IO is asking her to come back to Karnataka as otherwise they will come to her and register a case of kidnapping against petitioner No.2 at the behest of her family members.

To this the Court observed as follows:

“We have gone through the translation of the transcript at page D to page H originally in Kannada, now translated in English in which the petitioner No.1 expressed the feeling of lack of safety. Though the IO stated that they would like to close the case, they wanted her to get her statement recorded at the police station. The IO also stated that the family members may file a case against her that she has stolen things from the home and if an FIR is filed, there would be a negative mark against petitioner No.2 and they would have to arrest him which would be problematic for his job also.”(Para 5)

“The aforesaid does not reflect very well on the police authorities or the IO, the marriage certificate having been received by him and the conversation already been held with petitioner No.1 where she clearly stated that she was married to petitioner No.2 and that she was feeling threatened and apprehensive of coming to the police station. If the IO could have visited the residence of petitioner No.2, he could very well have recorded the statement of petitioner No.1 at the place where the petitioners were residing rather than insisting and calling upon the petitioners to come to the local police station at Karnataka. Not only that, he undoubtedly sought to compel the petitioner No.1 to come and record the statement at police station on the threat of possibility of a false case being registered by her parents against the petitioner No.2 and the consequent action of the police which would result in the arrest of petitioner No.2. We strongly deprecate the conduct of the IO in adopting these tactics and the officer must be sent for counseling as to how to manage such cases.” (Para 7)

The Court hence observed that

Insofar as the present case is concerned, the petitioners having filed the present petition, no further statement is really required to be recorded and thus, the proceedings in pursuance to the FIR No.226/2020 dated 15.10.2020 registered at Murgod Police Station, Belagavi District, Karnataka are quashed with the hope that the parents of petitioner No.1 will have a better sense to accept the marriage and re-establish social interaction not only with petitioner No.1 but even with petitioner No.2. That, in our view, is the only way forward. Under the garb of caste and community to alienate the child and the son-in-law will hardly be a desirable social exercise.” (Para 14)

The writ was hence disposed.



bottom of page